Tag: Fine

“…Sir Andrew Witty, GSK’s chief executive, said the settlement brought a resolution to “difficult, long-standing matters for GSK” adding: “I want to express our regret and reiterate that we have learned from the mistakes we made.”

Critics point out that other executives directly named as having been told of concerns continue in top jobs, albeit in different companies.

Whistleblower Greg Thorpe first alerted the company to the entertainment offered to doctors and the culture that allegedly put profits above ethics in 2001. He raised his concerns with David Stout, who was then head of the US business, and Bob Ingram, GSK’s chief operating officer. When he was forced out of the company, he took his case to the regulators, which spent almost 10 years investigating the issues….”

“…..Eliot Spitzer, who as New York’s attorney general sued GSK over similar allegations eight years ago, told the New York Times that companies like GSK seem incorrigible. “What we are learning is that money [ie fines] do not deter corporate malfeasance. The only thing that will work in my view is chief executive officers and officials being forced to resign and individual culpability being enforced…….”

GSK whistle-blower Greg Thorpe left a really interesting comment on my blog – in relation to GSK’s Lamictal. Lamictal was one of the drugs mentioned in the US department of justice complaint- which eventually led to GSK’s 3 billion dollar fine in 2012. It was because of Greg’s bravery and tenacity that this fine came to fruition and GSK’s vast off label fraud and criminality was exposed to the world, however, as Greg has stated multiple times- the fine itself was paltry, as was the final settlement. It was not justice for patients nor was it adequate punishment for GSK. The CEO’s and top executives did not receive fines or jail time, in fact many of them were made multi-millionaires and now live in luxury, despite the fact that they were part of a massive fraud and bribery network which led directly to deaths and harm to tens of thousands of innocent trusting patients and consumers (as illustrated in the Dept of Justice complaint).

One such executive now living the high life off the backs of many years of GSK’s various unethical shenanigans is Bob Ingram. Bob Ingram was the US head of GSK for many years leading up to GSK’s 3 Billion felony crimes. Bob now enjoys showing off his Porshe collection all around the US. He’s probably worth tens of millions, and perhaps never gives a second thought to kids killed on Paxil, or any other folks harmed by GSK’s greed over the years?

“….GSK DID NOT pay 3 billion dollars for Lamictal crimes…little to nothing was paid for Lamictal relative to the settlement…in spite of the fact that it was actively marketed for depression and bipolar disorders at least 6 years before any type of approval. This was a large part of the DOJ complaint I filed in 2003. In fact one woman died after treatment of her depression with Lamictal. It was reported to GSK and they covered it up. I reported this murder to DOJ in my complaint, it was ignored. GSK made hundreds of millions of off label dollars with this dangerous drug for years. There SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT LEAST a 3 billion dollar drug alone in fines and executives were informed, look up the Thorpe v GSK complaint. Career prosecutors under Eric Holder, former attorney for the company who Said he recused himself ….huh? allowed this quid pro quo to happen under corrupt career prosecutors…want names..Ask Jeff Sessions .
The taxpayers were robbed of Tens of billions of dollars by the Department of Injustice who took ten years to ruin my complaint…to give GSK a free pass=1 month of GSK profit.

This death occurred where I worked, they did nothing. Holder and his crew of career idiots and political hacks should be in jail, right along with Bob Ingram ,

JP Garnier, and all the planners and initiators of the fraud.
It is the most horrible, disgusting violation of everything proper, that should have concluded a 10 year investigation. It makes the current Russian scam a walk in the park.

I still cannot believe how bad and evil these deep state bastards in the DOJ
gave this free pass to what I reported.
Now Bob Ingram r, former CEO, COO, rides around in his choice of dozens of Porsches, that run on the blood of dead or maimed patients. Who will come forward at the DOJ ?
We’ll see….”

The improper payments in China weren’t accurately recorded on GSK’s books, the regulators said”…

“…In a statement, the company said it had cooperated with the SEC and it had received credit for taking steps to improve its operations, such as changing how sales representatives are paid and stopping the practice of paying healthcare professionals to speak to doctors about the company’s products.

It also said the U.S. Justice Department, which had opened a parallel criminal investigation into the matter, was closing its probe without any action against the company.”….

GlaxoSmithKline to Pay $20 Million to Settle SEC Bribery Probe

GlaxoSmithKline PLC agreed to pay $20 million to settle charges that the drugmaker’s Chinese subsidiaries engaged in bribery schemes to increase sales in the Asian country, the Securities and Exchange Commission said Friday.

The SEC alleged that between 2010 and 2013, GlaxoSmithKline’s subsidiary and a China-based joint-venture violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by providing inappropriate gifts to foreign officials, including health-care professionals. The commission also alleged that the payments were often falsely recorded as legitimate expenses.

The bribes took the forms of gifts, improper travel and entertainment with no or little educational purpose, shopping trips and cash, among others, the SEC said in its order.

Read More

Glaxo entered into the SEC agreement without confirming or denying the charges, the U.S. agency said in its statement.

In a separate statement, Glaxo said it has installed several reforms, including shifts to the compensation of sales representatives and the end of payments to health-care practitioners for advocating for Glaxo products to other prescribers.

“The U.S. Department of Justice has also concluded its investigation into these matters and will be taking no further action,” Glaxo said in a prepared statement. “The SEC and DOJ investigations were initiated as part of an industry-wide inquiry in 2010.”

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.

In 2014, a Chinese court found the company guilty of bribery and penalized Glaxo $491.5 million in the same matter, which was touted at the time by Chinese state media as the largest-ever corporate fine in China.

Five of the company’s managers, including Mark Reilly, its former top China executive, were also convicted of bribery-related charges and received suspended prison sentences.

Share this:

Like this:

It’s good to see at least one mainstream news outlet has the balls to publish the truth about CEO Andrew Witty’s tenure at the helm at GSK over the past decade- however I would like to see more discussion about the 3 Billion dollar fine for what it actually was: a whitewash and NOT justice for consumers or patients- or in the words of Whistle-Blower Greg Thorpe– a mere “gift to GSK“…

Also, Perhaps Erika Kelton (the author of this Forbes article) could further explain to the public, why so little of this Department of Justice complaint involved Paxil (Seroxat/Paroxetine)? Considering that Paxil (Seroxat) has been GSK’s most controversial drug, I would like to know why was the focus of the investigation on Advair (GSK’s least dangerous drug when compared to drugs like Paxil) and also why do the other whistle-blowers- recruited at the time- not speak out about the sham investigation and white-wash fine?

My e-mail is always open to information and discussion Erika (if you’re reading!). I have much more information about GSK than I have published on this blog- several whistle-blowers have contacted me over the years, and some of these stories haven’t even been covered in the news at all, or online even.

Anyhow, here’s her Forbes article…

(ps- most of the info in this article could be gleaned straight from my blog- as I have been documenting GSK for ten years now- and have often done deeper digging than most journalists)

With Andrew Witty’s Departure, Will GlaxoSmithKline Say Goodbye to Fraud?

Erika Kelton ,

Contributor

I write about whistleblower matters involving fraud and other issues.

GSK has made headlines during Witty’s tenure, but for all the wrong reasons.

The company should scratch internal prospects off the list.

Glaxo SmithKline recently announced that its CEO, Andrew Witty, will be out the door as of March 31, 2017 – a development many were expecting.

GSK has made headlines during Witty’s tenure, but for all the wrong reasons.

Glaxo needs to make major changes after CEO Andrew Witty (on right) leaves the company next year.

Corruption, bribery, illegal marketing, contaminated drugs and collusion are some of the “highlights” of Glaxo’s business practices that were revealed during Witty’s nine years at the helm.

Witty oversaw Glaxo’s “Hall of Shame” when the following entries were added:

A $3 billion payment to the US to settle whistleblower allegations leading to civil and criminal charges that the company had marketed a number of its top-selling drugs for unapproved uses that in many cases endangered patients’ lives and health. It is the largest healthcare fraud settlement ever paid. (My firm represented the leading whistleblowers.)

A $750 million payment to settle whistleblower allegations that led to civil and criminal liability for manufacturing contaminated drugs at its facility in Puerto Rico and selling them.

A $489 million fine by a Chinese court for bribery and corruption charges based on allegations its China division paid doctors to prescribe Glaxo’s drugs. (A record penalty for China.)

A fine of roughly $54.5 million by Britain’s Competition & Markets Authority for allegedly paying generic drug makers illegally to delay the launch of cheaper versions of Glaxo’s Seroxat, an antidepressant.

A fine of about $9 million imposed by India’s Competition Commission for allegedly colluding with Sanofi India in bidding to supply a meningitis vaccine to the government for Haj pilgrims.

That’s a record that won’t be missed.

On the bright side, Witty’s announced resignation provides an opportunity for Glaxo to clean up its act.

Glaxo reportedly is considering external as well as internal candidates for the top spot. The company should scratch internal prospects off the list.

Witty came up through the ranks and landed in the CEO office after more than 20 years of slogging his way up from management trainee. Although Witty surely knows the business well, he was also part of a culture that was not healthy. Only an outsider with great resolve has a chance of reshaping the business to respect compliant and ethical practices.

Given Glaxo’s recent history, the board of directors should ensure that Witty’s replacement does more than drive up profits. A dramatic cultural shift at GSK is long past due.

A good place to start would be to listen to employees when they blow the whistle internally, particularly given the billions the company has paid to resolve significant problems whistleblowers have exposed. Glaxo will find that being open to whistleblower concerns could be very profitable in more ways than one.

Share this:

Like this:

“There have been warnings about paroxetine for a long time,” including a 2007 Food and Drug Administration advisory on the risk of increased suicidality when anti-depressants like paroxetine or imipramine are used to treat people age 18 to 24, according to Dr Jon Jureidini of the University of Adelaide in Australia. The authors of the 2001 study did not report this side effect, although the evidence was there, said Dr Jureidini, a co-author of the re-analysis.

“A broad community of people around the world have raised concerns,” he told Reuters news agency.

Evan Davis
I’m going to open it to the floor in a second, because we do want to leave half the session for the audience to ask questions. I’ll just finish with kind of a general reflection, because it is interesting, and it’s nice when you talk about the drugs and what they cure, what the treatments are. Don’t you find it very interesting that the pharmaceutical industry has a bad reputation? We read about the China corruption, we read about profits, we read about profiteering. It is an industry that saves lives, no one can dispute that. It’s an industry that produces pills that are completely transforming for people’s welfare. Yet, it’s actually not a terribly popular industry. I just wonder if you can explain that paradox. Is it that you’ve done bad things and that’s been recognized, or is there somehow something the public don’t understand about the industry that makes them feel negative about it? Or am I wrong in thinking there’s a slight [indiscernible] around it?

Andrew Witty
No, clearly – first of all, I think we are, slightly alongside any big industry, or any big institution, there is a bit of that. We are big companies, we’re global. Again, like any big organization, you’re vulnerable to your weakest link in the organization. So if something goes wrong, particularly in today’s social media world – I often think about what it must have been like to run a global company in the 1970s, where you had to wait for the ship to arrive to find out what happened on the other side of the world. Today, the Wall Street Journal calls you before you’ve even heard about something inside your own company. So I do think there is a certain phenomena where – and you see that across many, you look at it in politics, you look at it in newspapers. The hacking stories, all things like that. So I think it’s a bit of that. I do think – let’s be honest, nobody wakes up in the morning hoping that they’re going to need a drug from GSK. You don’t wake up in the morning thinking, actually, if it’s a really good day, I might be diagnosed to be ill and I might need a drug. So we’re not aspirational in that sense. So you start by saying, actually, I’ve got some bad news, because I’ve been told I’m not very well. They then said: we might have some good news, because there’s something we can help you with. Then in some countries, I have to pay for it. Or in Britain, you might go to the doctor and they say: actually, I’d like to give you this, but NICE have said I can’t. So then there’s a whole series of reasonably negative concepts around pricing. So there’s a bit of that. Then you’ve got – actually, we do occasionally make mistakes. Things go wrong. We have inevitably – of course, we go through all the processes with the regulators to get a drug to be as safe and effective as it can possibly be. But the reality is, every time a human takes a drug, it’s like a clinical trial. You don’t really know what’s going to happen. Everybody can react a different way. So on the one hand, what is the story of the drug industry? The story of the drug industry is wonder drugs. On the other hand, it’s danger drugs. Those are the two extremes that we have. It’s kind of unavoidable.

Evan Davis
But you’re saying there are bad apples, and it goes wrong. Is that right, or is it – for example, in the China case. Was it that there was a bad apple and it went wrong, or was it that that was normal behaviour in certain markets, and it just got called out in that particular case?

Andrew Witty
For obvious reasons, I’m not going to get into all the details of that.

Evan Davis
Was that behaviour actually something, or was it just a slight extension of behaviour that is normal?

Andrew Witty
I think the bigger question is, where do you want to go forward?

Evan Davis
No, but just answer that one.

Andrew Witty
There’s no doubt, if you ask the more general question – so there have been concerns over the years of, is the drug industry transparent enough? What’s the relationship of the drug industry with doctors? All of those are kind of concerns – let’s call them concerns or reasons for anxiety, whatever they are. Sometimes they’ve spiked up into real issues. What we’ve really tried to do, and we’re beginning to see some other companies, I think, following a similar direction, is we’ve said: you know what? We get that. We get that transparency is a cause of concern. People are worried that something is being hidden. We didn’t think there was but people – perception is everything, right? So what did we do? We came out and said: we will publish every single bit of clinical data we have in the company. We are the only company to do that at this point. Every single thing. If a researcher wants to know exactly what the data was on patient number – all anonymized, but on Patient 1002, in Clinical Trial 87, from 2002, we will give them that information. All the way through, we’ll do that. We’ve said we will stop all payments to physicians to speak on behalf of the company. It’s a perfectly legal practice, everything the company has done – but we stopped it all.

Evan Davis
But this is a recognition – there is a lot you’ve done to present these things differently. But it is a recognition that it was pretty dysfunctional before, isn’t it? Because publishing data, to me, honestly, doesn’t seem like a great achievement. It just seems to me that that’s what you should be doing with data. Not bribing doctors seems like a thing you would do.

Andrew Witty
I wouldn’t say it’s bribing doctors – it’s perfectly legal to pay. If you went to a physician and said, would you expect to be paid for speaking on behalf of somebody, they will probably say yes. Actually, in most countries in the world, it’s perfectly legal. However, there are risks it can be abused. People can make mistakes. And there are risks that there is a misperception. Just to your point on publication, do you think academics are mandated to publish their data? Do you think universities publish all their failed studies? They don’t, but we do.

One box of chocolates for the first person to tell me how many times Witty deflects the questions put to him.

**Footnote

GSK were forced to be transparent, they didn’t just decide one day that they were going to be the first pharmaceutical company to “open it’s doors” (Halfway)

“Among other things, the CIA also requires GSK to implement and maintain transparency in its research practices and publication policies and to follow specified policies in its contracts with various health care payors.”

Also…

“Moving forward, GSK will be subject to stringent requirements under its corporate integrity agreement with HHS-OIG; this agreement is designed to increase accountability and transparency and prevent future fraud and abuse.”

I think the bigger question is why did Witty fail to mention that his company were forced to be more transparent.

Regular readers, and those interested in GSK, would likely be aware of the record breaking 3 Billion dollar fine which GSK had to pay the US justice department in 2012. The US justice department complaint which this fine is based on is absolutely huge, and the sheer scale of the abuses of ethics and morals which GSK were engaged in for many years is simply astounding. The full complaint can be viewed here, and at 243 pages, it’s quite a read, and I’m sure most readers won’t fail to be utterly appalled at the litany of charges contained within it.

However, according to some comments by an apparent whistleblower on my blog recently, this complaint should have been much wider in its scope, and should have been at least twice (or more) in its length of charges against GSK. It would be interesting to know why the department of Justice didn’t just go the whole hog and fine GSK on all the information which they had in their possession, why was the complaint supposedly much smaller than it should have been?

This blog is primarily about Paxil (Seroxat) because that is the drug which I was prescribed and it’s the drug that damaged me, therefore I find the information about Seroxat the most interesting, however, I also find it puzzling that the Paxil part of the complaint seems quite meager considering Seroxat/Paxil was one of Glaxo’s most notorious, particularly in the sense of the scandals, cover ups and controversy surrounding it.

Is there more about Paxil which should be in there? is there more about other drugs? or other fraudulent or unethical behavior? If so, where is that information? and how do we get access to it?

If anyone has any information regarding this, contact me on the e-mail provided.

The drug company paid all of the money. But, years later, one local man, Terry Tribble, says he still hasn’t seen a dime.

“My God, what happens if I(die) while waiting on them to sign a paper and issue the money?” Tribble said.

Glaxo SmithKline (GSK) agreed to pay more than $3 billion for problems caused by the diabetes drug Avandia. Patients claimed that the drug increased their risk of heart problems and stroke. Thousands sued, including the federal government and more than 45 states.

GSK settled for $3 billion with the federal government. It agreed in November 2012 to pay $90 million to North Carolina and 37 other states. It settled for $229 million with South Carolina and seven other states in July 2013. GSK also settled private lawsuits. Those terms are confidential.

GSK said it “settled these matters to avoid the expense and uncertainty of protracted litigation and trial. The company did not admit to any wrongdoing or liability of any kind under these state laws in this settlement.”

Tribble said he lived with diabetes for close to two decades. “You just live in constant fear of: Are you going to live today? Are you going to live tomorrow?” he said.

Then came Avandia. He said the drug worked wonders. But, then, he claimed, he started having heart problems.

GSK put the settlement money in escrow. Since then, it’s been up to various resolution groups to distribute the pot accordingly. But Tribble said he hasn’t seen any of the money.

“They just keep putting it [off], putting it [off], putting it [off],” he said.

Action 9 contacted the Ohio-based resolution group handling Tribble’s claim. Because of privacy reasons, it won’t say if he’s entitled to part of the money. In fact, under the Avandia settlement, it couldn’t even say how many people are still waiting or when they can expect a payout.

Even though GSK has paid the money and is no longer part of the process, it did exchange a number of emails with Action 9. The company said:

“The principal reason funds may remain in escrow is that the courts have required that a portion of the funds be paid to certain health insurers who provided coverage to settling claimants. GSK must rely on the claimants and their attorneys, who often engage lien resolution administrators, to identify and inform the appropriate health insurers of the existence of the settlements and to negotiate an agreement concerning the precise portion of each claimant’s settlement that will be received by the claimant’s insurer. The process of resolving the insurers’ claims can be time consuming, although note that GSK is not a part of this process. GSK’s interest is only that settlement proceeds get distributed accurately.”

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Big Pharma Criminality and Fraud No Longer a Conspiracy Theory

This is for everyone who has been saying that I don’t know what I’m talking about and don’t have the facts regarding the healthcare, pharmaceutical, and vaccine industries. GlaxoSmithKline, one of the largest multinational pharmaceutical, biologics, and vaccine corporations in the world, has plead guilty to criminal fraud charges, and has been ordered to pay $3 billion in fines, the largest healthcare fraud settlement in U.S. history.

This is just one example of the decades-long conspiracy of criminal activity and deep collusion between government, big pharma, and the media. They have been lying, and the media has been supporting and covering for the illegal chemical and biological warfare of these drug companies.

Glaxo made $27.9 billion from the sale of Paxil, Wellbutrin, and Avandia. The fine was incurred due to hiding the dangers and inducing doctors to prescribe these drugs for off-label uses.

However, Glaxo had already set aside the $3 billion from their war chest of $27.9 billion, to pay the government fine. Glaxo said in a statement to the BBC that they will pay the fine out of existing cash resources.Some of the criminal charges GlaxoSmithKline plead guilty to:

Bribing doctors

Lying to the FDA

Fabricating drug safety data

Defrauding Medicare and Medicaid out of billions

Deceiving regulators about the effectiveness of its drugs

Among the many doctors bribed by GlaxoSmithKline was Dr. Drew Pinsky, who received $275,000.00 to promote Glaxo’s anti-depressant drug, Wellbutrin. Also, sales reps in the U.S. were encouraged to mis-sell Glaxo’s antidepressants. Where is the accountability?

“On behalf of (Glaxo), I want to express our regret and reiterate that we have learnt from the mistakes that were made. When necessary, we have removed employees who have engaged in misconduct.” – Andrew Witty, CEO of GlaxoSmithKline “What we’re learning is that money doesn’t deter corporate malfeasance.” – Eliot Spitzer, former attorney general of New York “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” – Marcia Angell, MD Similarly,

Bayer was caught shipping out Factor VIII hemophilia blood products that were knowingly infected with HIV and hepatitis C, to patients all over the country for over a decade. It is estimated that the resulting deaths from just those blood products number in the hundreds of thousands.

Government regulators are themselves corrupted from within. For instance, the former director of the CDC from 2002 through 2009, Dr. Julie Gerberding, landed a very lucrative job as president of the $5 billion vaccine division at Merck, one of the largest drug companies in the world. She was very likely cultivating a relationship with Merck all those years. The pharmaceutical industry has a giant “revolving door” through which corporations and government agencies frequently exchange key employees. And the bought-and-paid-for state run media is standing by to propagandize the masses about how great it is. “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” – Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany Relevant news articles:

300 years of Andrew Witty? What to buy with $3 billion

04 July 2012

John Hodgson

GlaxoSmithKline, part of what used to be called ‘the ethical pharmaceutical industry’ back in the days when Boy Scouts wore short pants, was docked a record $3 billion in state and federal fines and in liabilities in the US for misdemeanours violations concerning the marketing of antidepressants and its diabetes drug, Avandia (scripintelligence.com, 3 July 2012).

GSK’s stock price rise in London of 22 pence on the day was a collective investor sigh of relief that the dmage was as low as $3 billion. This was half the amount GSK had predicted (£4 billion – $6 billion).

But the company surely would have much rather determined itself how the money was spent.

So, on the day the Higgs boson first poked its mass-defining nosy signal above the parapet of subatomic noise, Scrip would like to take you on a trip to some alternative universes, universes in which an innocent (or undetected) GSK gets, Sinatra-like, to spend $3 billion its way.

What then, in the words of the Finance Director, is the opportunity cost of being naughty and getting caught?

Without the fine, for instance, GSK might have paid out an extra 60 cents a share in dividends to shareholders.

Or it could have spent the money on R&D, adding 50% again to its annual innovation budget.

Ot it could cornerstone a hundred regional venture capital funds around the globe (but probably still mainly in New England and California) and really stoke up early stage life science companies.

It could have bought more or its own shares. In 2011, GSK spent £2.2 billion ($3.45 billion) on auto-cannibalism, buying its own shares. It will probably make similarly narcissistic purchases in 2012. With a market capitalisation of around $110 billion, each $1 billion in stock repurchase by GSK increases its earnings-per-share by nearly 1% without the company having to do anything to change its business in any tangible way. A $3 billion bonus would have boosted GSK EPS 2.7%.

On the other hand, GSK could have made an irresistible offer for HGS, $5.6 billion rather the paltry $2.6 billion it currently has on the table now, gathering dust (scripintelligence, com, 11 June 2012).

[Mind you, with no other bidders in sight, no rumours of bidders from any investments banks, and no statistically significant evidence that icicles are forming in Hades, GSK probably doesn’t have to rush that one.]

Or the company could keep Andrew Witty on his 2011 salary for close to 300 years, although that seems an excessive period without a raise, even for a man who seems happy enough with a mere $10.6 million compensation, well below the 2011 Big Pharma average of $16.3 million (scripintelligence.com, 30 March 2012).

Alternatively, in order to flatten the GSK organisational structure still further, and to extend the R&D analogy of ‘shots on goal’ to management circles, $3 billion would buy the company ten years with an expanded management team of 30 CEOs with salary-linked egos. Then GSK really would run like a collection of biotechs.

Of course, there are lots of alternative universes outside GSK. Spent on a global initiative to tackle neglected tropical diseases, for instance, $3 billion might stretch further. At the launch of just such an initiative in January (scripintelligence.com, 31 January 2012) into which the Gates Foundation had committed $383 million, Andrew Witty, speaking for 13 pharma firms involved said: “Many companies and organisations have worked for decades to fight these horrific diseases. But no one company or organisation can do it alone.”

Hmmn, Andrew. Hate to be picky, but $3000 million probably might just cover it. Oh, no! Forgot! You don’t have it any more. Silly tropical diseases will just have stay neglected a bit longer.

Part of case against GSK involved allegations that the company promoted paediatric use of its Paxil and Wellbutrin antidepressants despite studies that had failed to show efficacy. $3 billion worth of hindsight later, what is clear is that the company had rightly identified an unmet medical need but then addressed it in the wrong way.

Depressed juveniles? Yufaxil? Nothanksil! Get a Playstation 3 bundle from Amazon costing $299,99. Need extended release? Try the top of the range Microsoft Xbox 360 250 Gb consoles with Kinect at around $380.$3 billion gets around 10 million of them.

This is just the sort of imaginative social comparator that health technology agencies need to think about.

Or, if you want to keep any preventative solution within the care sector, GSK’s fine equals around 200 year’s running the UK suicide prevention charity, the Samaritans (at £10 million a year) or, by extrapolation, 2 years pro rata support for suicide prevention across the entire 7 billion human population.

But wait. There’s another way. A better way! Spend some of money (not all of it, obviously, just most) on better lawyers, smarter certainly than the ones who lost this case.

Glaxo Found Guilty of Bribery in China: Can Witty Rehabilitate the Drug Maker?

After months of anticipation, a Chinese court found the GlaxoSmithKlineGSK.LN+0.90% subsidiary in China guilty of bribing doctors, hospital officials and other non-government personnel, and fined the drug maker more than $490 million, The Wall Street Journal reports. This becomes the largest such penalty levied on a company in China.

At the same time, Mark Reilly, the former head of the Glaxo unit in China, pleaded guilty to bribery-related charges and was given a three-year suspended sentence. There are varying reports, however, whether he will be deported or required to remain in China during that time. Four other senior Glaxo managers in China also received suspended sentences of between two and four years.

As we have noted previously, the drug maker had been accused of running a bribery network in China that was designed to boost drug sales. As part of the scheme, Glaxo employees allegedly bribed physicians and hospital staff members, while channeling kickbacks through travel agencies and trade groups, among others.

The court decisions cap a tumultuous episode for Glaxo, which was already struggling to restore its image and revamp business practices in the wake of a $3 billion settlement with U.S. authorities two years ago. The drug maker had been accused of failing to disclose clinical trial data for certain medicines and improperly marketing drugs, among other things.

Andrew Witty, the Glaxo chief executive, issued a brief statement: “Reaching a conclusion in the investigation of our Chinese business is important, but this has been a deeply disappointing matter for GSK. We have and will continue to learn from this. GSK has been in China for close to a hundred years and we remain fully committed to the country and its people.” (here is the official apology, too).

Despite the contrition, pressure may be mounting on Witty, who has repeatedly emphasized the China and other so-called emerging markets are key to Glaxo growth. As the Journal points out, some investors are starting to question his overall performance and whether the scandal in China may represent a systemic problem.

Indeed, Glaxo previously acknowledged investigating claims employees bribed doctors in Poland, Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Meanwhile, the FBI and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission are probing its activities in China. As part of a probe into the pharmaceutical industry, U.S. authorities have been eyeing its overseas dealings since 2010 for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

It is worth noting that Witty has now spent half of his six-year tenure trying to overhaul business practices, and has still more fines and investigations to show for his efforts. Granted, cultural differences require varying approaches to success around the world, and Glaxo is not the only drug maker facing this challenge. But Glaxo is now something of a poster child for scandal.

Witty has made headway in other areas. In particular, he has won kudos for his push to make clinical trial data more readily accessible to researchers, a move that has helped Glaxo deflect much of the criticism leveled at the pharmaceutical industry otherwise. In trying to resolve this highly contentious issue, he placed himself and Glaxo in a leadership position.

Whether he emerges unscathed by the latest developments in China – and unfolding events elsewhere – remains to be seen, of course. But Witty may need to have Glaxo executives practice some of the self-criticism that Chinese Communist Party leaders preach as a path toward rehabilitation.

The pharma firm’s former China boss is said to escape jail time as GSK tries to draw a line under a “deeply disappointing” matter.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has been fined almost £300m by a court in China – a record in the country – for bribing health officials to use its products.

The pharmaceutical firm confirmed the £297m penalty imposed by the Changsha Intermediate People’s Court in Hunan Province, saying it accepted that illegal activities took place and the fine would be paid through existing cash resources.

The Chinese state news agency, Xinhua, reported that the former head of GSK in China and other executives faced jail terms but a GSK source told Sky News that Mark Reilly was to be deported after being handed a three-year suspended sentence.

The company’s statement said the court found that “GSK China Investment (GSKCI) …offered money or property to non-government personnel in order to obtain improper commercial gains.

Mark Reilly used to run GSKCI

“The illegal activities of GSKCI are a clear breach of GSK’s governance and compliance procedures; and are wholly contrary to the values and standards expected from GSK employees.

“GSK has published a statement of apology to the Chinese government and its people on its website.

“GSK has co-operated fully with the authorities and has taken steps to comprehensively rectify the issues identified at the operations of GSKCI.

“This includes fundamentally changing the incentive programme for its salesforces (decoupling sales targets from compensation); significantly reducing and changing engagement activities with healthcare professionals; and expanding processes for review and monitoring of invoicing and payments.”

GSK chief executive Sir Andrew Witty added: “Reaching a conclusion in the investigation of our Chinese business is important, but this has been a deeply disappointing matter for GSK.

“We have and will continue to learn from this. GSK has been in China for close to a hundred years and we remain fully committed to the country and its people.”

The investigation took a number of twists with a British man, who was hired as an investigator by GSK, being jailed for two years and six months in August.

The Chinese authorities claimed Peter Humphrey illegally obtained Chinese citizens’ personal information and sold it to companies including GSK.

Peter Humphrey’s health is said to be poor

The London-listed firm hired him after an anonymous email, containing a sex tape of Mr Reilly and his Chinese girlfriend, was sent to senior management in January last year.

The email alleged corrupt practices in GSK’s China operation.

GSK’s ethical standards have also been called into question in Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan,Syria and Poland.

If Glaxo’s CEO wants to be Mr. Clean, he needs to pick up a broom

GlaxoSmithKline ($GSK) says it’s rolling out sales and marketing reforms around the world. Apparently, the changes come none too soon. The British drugmaker opened another bribery investigation, this time in Iraq, to check out allegations that it paid government-employed physicians to promote its products.

And Glaxo hasn’t yet finished working through the scandalous Chinese bribery allegations that kicked off an industrywide corruption crackdown.

So, CEO Andrew Witty and his team sound a bit … conflicted. On the one hand, Witty sounds the perfectly contrite corporate leader. He apologized for the marketing allegations that ended with a $3 billion Department of Justice settlements. He’s promised good behavior and touted those worldwide sales reforms. But on the other, the company is digging into at least two sets of corruption accusations, and faces related repercussions at home and in the U.S. Two bribery probes in two different geographic divisions? That’s a systemic problem.

When the Chinese bribery scandal hit, Glaxo’s U.K. headquarters was quick to say that head-office executives didn’t know about any malfeasance in its China subsidiary. That may be so. But if HQ didn’t know, that means HQ was either turning a blind eye or failing to pay enough attention. Either way, that’s not a good thing for a company trying to clean up its image.

If Witty really wants to reform GSK, then he and his top managers need to move beyond plausible deniability. They can’t just launch new quota-free sales-rep compensation and promise to stop paying speaking fees to doctors in the U.S. and beyond. Painful follow-through has to happen.

We need to see Glaxo execs take out their brooms, and move into global operations to sweep out misbehavior. If they don’t, whistleblowers and government investigators will. And that makes all those the sales-and-marketing changes look like little more than window-dressing. — Tracy Staton (email | Twitter)